DOCSLIB.ORG

Mass-Energy-Momentum: Only There Because of Spacetime?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mass-Energy-Momentum: Only There Because of Spacetime? Mass-Energy-Momentum: Only there because of Spacetime? Dennis Lehmkuhl, Oriel College, Oxford University; and IZWT, University of Wuppertal Email: [email protected] Abstract I describe how relativistic field theory generalises the paradigm property of material systems, the possession of mass, to the require- ment that they have a mass-energy-momentum density tensor Tµν associated with them. I argue that Tµν does not represent an intrinsic property of matter. For it will become evident that the definition of Tµν depends on the metric field gµν in a variety of ways. Accordingly, since gµν represents the geometry of spacetime itself, the properties of mass, stress, energy and momentum should not be seen as intrinsic properties of matter, but as relational properties that material sys- tems have only in virtue of their relation to spacetime structure. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 The concept of matter in field theory 6 2.1 A short history of energy-momentum tensors . 7 2.2 Metaphysical matters . 12 3 Explicit metric dependence 12 4 Metric dependence in Lagrangian theories 14 4.1 The basic ideas of Lagrangian field theory . 14 4.2 Enter the energy tensor . 16 4.3 Different kinds of coupling . 18 1 INTRODUCTION 2 5 Metric dependence in general 21 5.1 Definitional dependence at the level of the matter fields . 23 5.2 Definitional dependence at the level of conditions on the en- ergy tensor . 25 5.3 Abstract definitional dependence . 26 5.4 Interpretational dependence . 27 6 What kind of property is mass-energy-momentum? 30 6.1 A relational property? . 30 6.2 Relational and essential? . 33 7 Conclusion 35 1 Introduction In the Stanford Encyclopaedia for Philosophy, in the entry \Intrinsic and Extrinsic properties", Weatherson [2007] writes: I have some of my properties purely in virtue of the way I am. (My mass is an example.) I have other properties in virtue of the way I interact with the world. (My weight is an example.) The former are the intrinsic properties, the latter are the extrinsic properties. The claim that mass is intrinsic is initially plausible, whereas properties like velocity, momentum and consequently energy|or at least kinetic energy| seem paradigm cases of extrinsic properties. A potential problem arises in relativity theory (special and general), where the concepts of mass, energy, momentum and their respective densities and current densities are described by a single mathematical object, the mass-stress-energy-momentum density tensor Tµν. The question is then whether one should regard Tµν as repre- senting an intrinsic or an extrinsic property (or set of properties) of material systems.1 1I shall address the historical question of how mass density, energy density and momen- tum density were summarised into a single tensor Tµν in section 2.1. Conceptually, the question whether Tµν should be interpreted as a single property or as a set of properties seems similar to asking whether the electromagnetic field tensor Fµν represents one sin- gle property (electromagnetic field strength) or two (electric field strength and magnetic 1 INTRODUCTION 3 I shall argue that mass-energy-momentum density, as described in rela- tivity theory, is not an intrinsic property of material systems, but a property they have only in virtue of their relation to spacetime structure, in particular to the metric tensor gµν. Nevertheless, the non-vanishing of a mass-energy- momentum density tensor Tµν at a point will turn out to be a necessary and sufficient condition for this point to be occupied by matter.2 It will emerge that the energy tensor Tµν is in important ways less fun- damental than the metric field gµν. Historically, Mach's principle, the idea that the reverse was the case, was very important for Einstein up until 1921. In Einstein [1918], p.38, he expresses the principle in the following way:3 Mach's principle: The [gµν]-field is fully determined by the masses field strength). In the case of the Faraday tensor the answer seems clear: the ques- tion of whether electric or magnetic fields are present depends on the frame of reference; hence electromagnetic field strength should be seen as the fundamental property. One might wish to make a similar case for the different components of Tµν , arguing that mass- energy-momentum density should be seen as the (single) fundamental property. However, it should be noted that Lange [2001, 2002] and Flores [2005] have recently revived discus- sion of what the `equivalence' between mass m and energy E of a material system really means, both authors attacking the intuition that `equivalence' should be understood as `identity', while drawing different conclusions with regard to how `equivalence' should be understood. Both authors, though, merely investigate the question of what E = mc2 means in the context of special relativistic particle mechanics. In order to give a conclu- sive answer it seems necessary to extend their discussion to more general material systems characterised by a complete Tµν . It seems plausible that in this more general case we might find ourselves forced to accept that there is just a single property, mass-energy-momentum density. At any rate, the main point of this article is independent of the answer to the question of whether Tµν should be seen as representing only one property or a set of properties. In the first case, my argumentation would be interpreted as concluding that Tµν represents a relational property; in the second that it represents a set of relational properties. 2For simplicity, I shall often just speak of the `energy-momentum tensor' or even just of the `energy tensor' of a material system, rather than of a mass-stress-energy-momentum density tensor. Note that Tµν is not a tensor density in the mathematical sense: like the scalar field ρ in Newtonian theory, it is a tensor that represents a physical density, rather than a mathematical object that transforms as a tensor density. 3\Machsches Prinzip: Das G-Feld ist restlos durch die Massen der K¨orper bestimmt. Da Masse und Energie nach den Ergebnissen der speziellen Relativit¨atstheoriedas Gleiche sind und die Energie formal durch den symmetrischen Energietensor (Tµν ) beschrieben wird, so besagt dies, dass das G-Feld durch den Energietensor bedingt und bestimmt sei." (My translation). For discussions on the precise influence of Mach on Einstein, the question of how adequate Einstein's reading of Mach was, and other possible formulations of Mach's principle, see Hoefer [1994], Barbour and Pfister [1995], Renn [2007] and Barbour [2007]. 1 INTRODUCTION 4 of bodies. Since according to the results of the special theory of relativity mass and energy are the same, and since energy is formally described by the symmetric energy tensor (Tµν), Mach's principle says that the [gµν]-field is constrained and determined by the energy tensor. Einstein's formulation of Mach's principle is often taken as indicating his commitment to a Leibnizian/relationalist programme: spacetime was sup- posed to be secondary to (the mass-energy distribution of) material objects.4 Famously, GR does not fulfil Mach's principle as defined above; for example, the original gravitational field equations 1 R − g R = κ T ; (1) µν 2 µν E µν allow empty Minkowski spacetime as a solution, among many other matter- free solutions. Even the modified field equations, in which Einstein intro- duced the cosmological constant λ in order for them to accord with Mach's 5 principle, turned out to allow for non-trivial solutions even if Tµν = 0. Fur- thermore, the left-hand side of the Einstein equations represents only part of the geometric structure|the Ricci curvature Rµν|whereas the Weyl cur- vature Cµνσ! is only constrained but not determined by the energy tensor 6 Tµν. We will see that even if knowing the energy tensor would uniquely de- termine the geometric structure, and hence even if Einstein's formulation of Mach's principle was fulfilled, there would still be no reason to regard mat- ter as more fundamental than spacetime in the theory. For the only thing 4In a footnote, Einstein points out that up to the publication of this article (in 1918), he had not distinguished between what he now called Mach's principle and the relativity principle. In Einstein [1918], p.38, the relativity principle is defined in the following way (which is quite different from his earlier formulations): \The laws of nature are state- ments about spatio-temporal coincidences; hence they find their only natural expression in generally covariant equations." 5See Hoefer [1994] for details. 6Earman [1989], p. 107, points out that \the idea that the distribution of mass-energy determines the metric fares even worse in the initial-value problem for Einstein's field equations. [...] Einstein's field equations constrain the initial data through elliptic partial- differential equations that imply that the initial matter distribution cannot be specified independently of the intrinsic spatial geometry and the extrinsic curvature of the inital- value hypersurface." 1 INTRODUCTION 5 that would really suggest that either matter or geometry was more funda- mental would be if the existence of one was a requirement for the existence of the other but not vice versa. We will see that spacetime (and its geo- metric structure) can exist without matter, whereas systems cannot possess mass-energy-momentum density without spacetime structure being in place.7 I will start out in section 1 by arguing that what we mean (or should mean) by `a material system' when taking into account relativistic field theory is a system which has a mass-energy-momentum tensor Tµν associated with it. In section 3, I shall argue that although most energy tensors depend on the metric tensor explicitly (there is a functional dependence), this is not the crucial kind of dependence of energy tensors on the metric.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Levi-Civita Tensor Noncovariance and Curvature in the Pseudotensors
    The Levi-Civita tensor noncovariance and curvature in the pseudotensors space A. L. Koshkarov∗ University of Petrozavodsk, Physics department, Russia Abstract It is shown that conventional ”covariant” derivative of the Levi-Civita tensor Eαβµν;ξ is not really covariant. Adding compensative terms, it is possible to make it covariant and to be equal to zero. Then one can be introduced a curvature in the pseudotensors space. There appears a curvature tensor which is dissimilar to ordinary one by covariant term including the Levi-Civita density derivatives hence to be equal to zero. This term is a little bit similar to Weylean one in the Weyl curvature tensor. There has been attempted to find a curvature measure in the combined (tensor plus pseudotensor) tensors space. Besides, there has been constructed some vector from the metric and the Levi-Civita density which gives new opportunities in geometry. 1 Introduction Tensor analysis which General Relativity is based on operates basically with true tensors and it is very little spoken of pseudotensors role. Although there are many objects in the world to be bound up with pseudotensors. For example most of particles and bodies in the Universe have angular momentum or spin. Here is a question: could a curvature tensor be a pseudotensor or include that in some way? It’s not clear. Anyway, symmetries of the Riemann-Christopher tensor are not compatible with those of the Levi-Civita pseudotensor. There are examples of using values in Physics to be a sum of a tensor and arXiv:0906.0647v1 [physics.gen-ph] 3 Jun 2009 a pseudotensor.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0911.0334V2 [Gr-Qc] 4 Jul 2020
    Classical Physics: Spacetime and Fields Nikodem Poplawski Department of Mathematics and Physics, University of New Haven, CT, USA Preface We present a self-contained introduction to the classical theory of spacetime and fields. This expo- sition is based on the most general principles: the principle of general covariance (relativity) and the principle of least action. The order of the exposition is: 1. Spacetime (principle of general covariance and tensors, affine connection, curvature, metric, tetrad and spin connection, Lorentz group, spinors); 2. Fields (principle of least action, action for gravitational field, matter, symmetries and conservation laws, gravitational field equations, spinor fields, electromagnetic field, action for particles). In this order, a particle is a special case of a field existing in spacetime, and classical mechanics can be derived from field theory. I dedicate this book to my Parents: Bo_zennaPop lawska and Janusz Pop lawski. I am also grateful to Chris Cox for inspiring this book. The Laws of Physics are simple, beautiful, and universal. arXiv:0911.0334v2 [gr-qc] 4 Jul 2020 1 Contents 1 Spacetime 5 1.1 Principle of general covariance and tensors . 5 1.1.1 Vectors . 5 1.1.2 Tensors . 6 1.1.3 Densities . 7 1.1.4 Contraction . 7 1.1.5 Kronecker and Levi-Civita symbols . 8 1.1.6 Dual densities . 8 1.1.7 Covariant integrals . 9 1.1.8 Antisymmetric derivatives . 9 1.2 Affine connection . 10 1.2.1 Covariant differentiation of tensors . 10 1.2.2 Parallel transport . 11 1.2.3 Torsion tensor . 11 1.2.4 Covariant differentiation of densities .
    [Show full text]
  • The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems Revisited
    Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited Roland Steinbauer Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna Prague, October 2016 The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 1 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Overview Long-term project on Lorentzian geometry and general relativity with metrics of low regularity jointly with `theoretical branch' (Vienna & U.K.): Melanie Graf, James Grant, G¨untherH¨ormann,Mike Kunzinger, Clemens S¨amann,James Vickers `exact solutions branch' (Vienna & Prague): Jiˇr´ıPodolsk´y,Clemens S¨amann,Robert Svarcˇ The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 2 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Contents 1 The classical singularity theorems 2 Interlude: Low regularity in GR 3 The low regularity singularity theorems 4 Key issues of the proofs 5 Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 3 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Table of Contents 1 The classical singularity theorems 2 Interlude: Low regularity in GR 3 The low regularity singularity theorems 4 Key issues of the proofs 5 Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 4 / 27 Theorem (Pattern singularity theorem [Senovilla, 98]) In a spacetime the following are incompatible (i) Energy condition (iii) Initial or boundary condition (ii) Causality condition (iv) Causal geodesic completeness (iii) initial condition ; causal geodesics start focussing (i) energy condition ; focussing goes on ; focal point (ii) causality condition ; no focal points way out: one causal geodesic has to be incomplete, i.e., : (iv) Classical singularity thms.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical and Semi-Classical Energy Conditions Arxiv:1702.05915V3 [Gr-Qc] 29 Mar 2017
    Classical and semi-classical energy conditions1 Prado Martin-Morunoa and Matt Visserb aDepartamento de F´ısica Te´orica I, Ciudad Universitaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain bSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: The standard energy conditions of classical general relativity are (mostly) linear in the stress-energy tensor, and have clear physical interpretations in terms of geodesic focussing, but suffer the significant drawback that they are often violated by semi-classical quantum effects. In contrast, it is possible to develop non-standard energy conditions that are intrinsically non-linear in the stress-energy tensor, and which exhibit much better well-controlled behaviour when semi-classical quantum effects are introduced, at the cost of a less direct applicability to geodesic focussing. In this chapter we will first review the standard energy conditions and their various limitations. (Including the connection to the Hawking{Ellis type I, II, III, and IV classification of stress-energy tensors). We shall then turn to the averaged, nonlinear, and semi-classical energy conditions, and see how much can be done once semi-classical quantum effects are included. arXiv:1702.05915v3 [gr-qc] 29 Mar 2017 1Draft chapter, on which the related chapter of the book Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions (to be published by Springer) will be based. Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Standard energy conditions2 2.1 The Hawking{Ellis type I | type IV classification4 2.2 Alternative canonical form8 2.3 Limitations of the standard energy conditions9 3 Averaged energy conditions 11 4 Nonlinear energy conditions 12 5 Semi-classical energy conditions 14 6 Discussion 16 1 Introduction The energy conditions, be they classical, semiclassical, or \fully quantum" are at heart purely phenomenological approaches to deciding what form of stress-energy is to be considered \physically reasonable".
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 1: Introduction
    Lecture 1: Introduction E. J. Hinch Non-Newtonian fluids occur commonly in our world. These fluids, such as toothpaste, saliva, oils, mud and lava, exhibit a number of behaviors that are different from Newtonian fluids and have a number of additional material properties. In general, these differences arise because the fluid has a microstructure that influences the flow. In section 2, we will present a collection of some of the interesting phenomena arising from flow nonlinearities, the inhibition of stretching, elastic effects and normal stresses. In section 3 we will discuss a variety of devices for measuring material properties, a process known as rheometry. 1 Fluid Mechanical Preliminaries The equations of motion for an incompressible fluid of unit density are (for details and derivation see any text on fluid mechanics, e.g. [1]) @u + (u · r) u = r · S + F (1) @t r · u = 0 (2) where u is the velocity, S is the total stress tensor and F are the body forces. It is customary to divide the total stress into an isotropic part and a deviatoric part as in S = −pI + σ (3) where tr σ = 0. These equations are closed only if we can relate the deviatoric stress to the velocity field (the pressure field satisfies the incompressibility condition). It is common to look for local models where the stress depends only on the local gradients of the flow: σ = σ (E) where E is the rate of strain tensor 1 E = ru + ruT ; (4) 2 the symmetric part of the the velocity gradient tensor. The trace-free requirement on σ and the physical requirement of symmetry σ = σT means that there are only 5 independent components of the deviatoric stress: 3 shear stresses (the off-diagonal elements) and 2 normal stress differences (the diagonal elements constrained to sum to 0).
    [Show full text]
  • Navier-Stokes-Equation
    Math 613 * Fall 2018 * Victor Matveev Derivation of the Navier-Stokes Equation 1. Relationship between force (stress), stress tensor, and strain: Consider any sub-volume inside the fluid, with variable unit normal n to the surface of this sub-volume. Definition: Force per area at each point along the surface of this sub-volume is called the stress vector T. When fluid is not in motion, T is pointing parallel to the outward normal n, and its magnitude equals pressure p: T = p n. However, if there is shear flow, the two are not parallel to each other, so we need a marix (a tensor), called the stress-tensor , to express the force direction relative to the normal direction, defined as follows: T Tn or Tnkjjk As we will see below, σ is a symmetric matrix, so we can also write Tn or Tnkkjj The difference in directions of T and n is due to the non-diagonal “deviatoric” part of the stress tensor, jk, which makes the force deviate from the normal: jkp jk jk where p is the usual (scalar) pressure From general considerations, it is clear that the only source of such “skew” / ”deviatoric” force in fluid is the shear component of the flow, described by the shear (non-diagonal) part of the “strain rate” tensor e kj: 2 1 jk2ee jk mm jk where euujk j k k j (strain rate tensro) 3 2 Note: the funny construct 2/3 guarantees that the part of proportional to has a zero trace. The two terms above represent the most general (and the only possible) mathematical expression that depends on first-order velocity derivatives and is invariant under coordinate transformations like rotations.
    [Show full text]
  • Leonhard Euler Moriam Yarrow
    Leonhard Euler Moriam Yarrow Euler's Life Leonhard Euler was one of the greatest mathematician and phsysicist of all time for his many contributions to mathematics. His works have inspired and are the foundation for modern mathe- matics. Euler was born in Basel, Switzerland on April 15, 1707 AD by Paul Euler and Marguerite Brucker. He is the oldest of five children. Once, Euler was born his family moved from Basel to Riehen, where most of his childhood took place. From a very young age Euler had a niche for math because his father taught him the subject. At the age of thirteen he was sent to live with his grandmother, where he attended the University of Basel to receive his Master of Philosphy in 1723. While he attended the Universirty of Basel, he studied greek in hebrew to satisfy his father. His father wanted to prepare him for a career in the field of theology in order to become a pastor, but his friend Johann Bernouilli convinced Euler's father to allow his son to pursue a career in mathematics. Bernoulli saw the potentional in Euler after giving him lessons. Euler received a position at the Academy at Saint Petersburg as a professor from his friend, Daniel Bernoulli. He rose through the ranks very quickly. Once Daniel Bernoulli decided to leave his position as the director of the mathmatical department, Euler was promoted. While in Russia, Euler was greeted/ introduced to Christian Goldbach, who sparked Euler's interest in number theory. Euler was a man of many talents because in Russia he was learning russian, executed studies on navigation and ship design, cartography, and an examiner for the military cadet corps.
    [Show full text]
  • On Certain Identities Involving Basic Spinors and Curvature Spinors
    ON CERTAIN IDENTITIES INVOLVING BASIC SPINORS AND CURVATURE SPINORS H. A. BUCHDAHL (received 22 May 1961) 1. Introduction The spinor analysis of Infeld and van der Waerden [1] is particularly well suited to the transcription of given flat space wave equations into forms which'constitute possible generalizations appropriate to Riemann spaces [2]. The basic elements of this calculus are (i) the skew-symmetric spinor y^, (ii) the hermitian tensor-spinor a*** (generalized Pauli matrices), and (iii) M the curvature spinor P ykl. When one deals with wave equations in Riemann spaces F4 one is apt to be confronted with expressions of somewhat be- wildering appearance in so far as they may involve products of a large number of <r-symbols many of the indices of which may be paired in all sorts of ways either with each other or with the indices of the components of the curvature spinors. Such expressions are generally capable of great simplifi- cation, but how the latter may be achieved is often far from obvious. It is the purpose of this paper to present a number of useful relations between basic tensors and spinors, commonly known relations being taken for gran- ted [3], [4], [5]. That some of these new relations appear as more or less trivial consequences of elementary identities is largely the result of a diligent search for their simplest derivation, once they had been obtained in more roundabout ways. Certain relations take a particularly simple form when the Vt is an Einstein space, and some necessary and sufficient conditions relating to Ein- stein spaces and to spaces of constant Riemannian curvature are considered in the last section.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rays, Singularities, and All That
    Light Rays, Singularities, and All That Edward Witten School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA Abstract This article is an introduction to causal properties of General Relativity. Topics include the Raychaudhuri equation, singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking, the black hole area theorem, topological censorship, and the Gao-Wald theorem. The article is based on lectures at the 2018 summer program Prospects in Theoretical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, and also at the 2020 New Zealand Mathematical Research Institute summer school in Nelson, New Zealand. Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Causal Paths 4 3 Globally Hyperbolic Spacetimes 11 3.1 Definition . 11 3.2 Some Properties of Globally Hyperbolic Spacetimes . 15 3.3 More On Compactness . 18 3.4 Cauchy Horizons . 21 3.5 Causality Conditions . 23 3.6 Maximal Extensions . 24 4 Geodesics and Focal Points 25 4.1 The Riemannian Case . 25 4.2 Lorentz Signature Analog . 28 4.3 Raychaudhuri’s Equation . 31 4.4 Hawking’s Big Bang Singularity Theorem . 35 5 Null Geodesics and Penrose’s Theorem 37 5.1 Promptness . 37 5.2 Promptness And Focal Points . 40 5.3 More On The Boundary Of The Future . 46 1 5.4 The Null Raychaudhuri Equation . 47 5.5 Trapped Surfaces . 52 5.6 Penrose’s Theorem . 54 6 Black Holes 58 6.1 Cosmic Censorship . 58 6.2 The Black Hole Region . 60 6.3 The Horizon And Its Generators . 63 7 Some Additional Topics 66 7.1 Topological Censorship . 67 7.2 The Averaged Null Energy Condition .
    [Show full text]
  • Euler and Chebyshev: from the Sphere to the Plane and Backwards Athanase Papadopoulos
    Euler and Chebyshev: From the sphere to the plane and backwards Athanase Papadopoulos To cite this version: Athanase Papadopoulos. Euler and Chebyshev: From the sphere to the plane and backwards. 2016. hal-01352229 HAL Id: hal-01352229 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01352229 Preprint submitted on 6 Aug 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. EULER AND CHEBYSHEV: FROM THE SPHERE TO THE PLANE AND BACKWARDS ATHANASE PAPADOPOULOS Abstract. We report on the works of Euler and Chebyshev on the drawing of geographical maps. We point out relations with questions about the fitting of garments that were studied by Chebyshev. This paper will appear in the Proceedings in Cybernetics, a volume dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Academician Vladimir Betelin. Keywords: Chebyshev, Euler, surfaces, conformal mappings, cartography, fitting of garments, linkages. AMS classification: 30C20, 91D20, 01A55, 01A50, 53-03, 53-02, 53A05, 53C42, 53A25. 1. Introduction Euler and Chebyshev were both interested in almost all problems in pure and applied mathematics and in engineering, including the conception of industrial ma- chines and technological devices. In this paper, we report on the problem of drawing geographical maps on which they both worked.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Geometric Character of Stress in Continuum Mechanics
    Z. angew. Math. Phys. 58 (2007) 1–14 0044-2275/07/050001-14 DOI 10.1007/s00033-007-6141-8 Zeitschrift f¨ur angewandte c 2007 Birkh¨auser Verlag, Basel Mathematik und Physik ZAMP On the geometric character of stress in continuum mechanics Eva Kanso, Marino Arroyo, Yiying Tong, Arash Yavari, Jerrold E. Marsden1 and Mathieu Desbrun Abstract. This paper shows that the stress field in the classical theory of continuum mechanics may be taken to be a covector-valued differential two-form. The balance laws and other funda- mental laws of continuum mechanics may be neatly rewritten in terms of this geometric stress. A geometrically attractive and covariant derivation of the balance laws from the principle of energy balance in terms of this stress is presented. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). Keywords. Continuum mechanics, elasticity, stress tensor, differential forms. 1. Motivation This paper proposes a reformulation of classical continuum mechanics in terms of bundle-valued exterior forms. Our motivation is to provide a geometric description of force in continuum mechanics, which leads to an elegant geometric theory and, at the same time, may enable the development of space-time integration algorithms that respect the underlying geometric structure at the discrete level. In classical mechanics the traditional approach is to define all the kinematic and kinetic quantities using vector and tensor fields. For example, velocity and traction are both viewed as vector fields and power is defined as their inner product, which is induced from an appropriately defined Riemannian metric. On the other hand, it has long been appreciated in geometric mechanics that force should not be viewed as a vector, but rather a one-form.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Introducing Riemannian Geometry
    3. Introducing Riemannian Geometry We have yet to meet the star of the show. There is one object that we can place on a manifold whose importance dwarfs all others, at least when it comes to understanding gravity. This is the metric. The existence of a metric brings a whole host of new concepts to the table which, collectively, are called Riemannian geometry.Infact,strictlyspeakingwewillneeda slightly di↵erent kind of metric for our study of gravity, one which, like the Minkowski metric, has some strange minus signs. This is referred to as Lorentzian Geometry and a slightly better name for this section would be “Introducing Riemannian and Lorentzian Geometry”. However, for our immediate purposes the di↵erences are minor. The novelties of Lorentzian geometry will become more pronounced later in the course when we explore some of the physical consequences such as horizons. 3.1 The Metric In Section 1, we informally introduced the metric as a way to measure distances between points. It does, indeed, provide this service but it is not its initial purpose. Instead, the metric is an inner product on each vector space Tp(M). Definition:Ametric g is a (0, 2) tensor field that is: Symmetric: g(X, Y )=g(Y,X). • Non-Degenerate: If, for any p M, g(X, Y ) =0forallY T (M)thenX =0. • 2 p 2 p p With a choice of coordinates, we can write the metric as g = g (x) dxµ dx⌫ µ⌫ ⌦ The object g is often written as a line element ds2 and this expression is abbreviated as 2 µ ⌫ ds = gµ⌫(x) dx dx This is the form that we saw previously in (1.4).
    [Show full text]